Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks Crime Government United Kingdom Your Rights Online

UK Gov't Wants Facebook To Feature Child Safety Button 237

Posted by timothy
from the extreme-unction dept.
judgecorp writes "Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has said that UK government ministers are 'taking action' to get Facebook to add a British child protection button (called CEOP) to its site. The move comes after the UK's Daily Mail withdrew allegations that teenagers on Facebook are continually pestered — though Facebook is still considering suing the paper. The campaign apparently ignores Facebook's assertion that it already has better child protection in place and the CEOP button would be limited to the UK."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Gov't Wants Facebook To Feature Child Safety Button

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:41AM (#31450026)

    Harridan Harperson can suck my cock.

    • Wait a sec. Since when did the British start having children again?
      • by Faluzeer (583626)

        Hmmm

        Our population is rising, if you believe the BNP & the right wing tabloid press, this is solely down to a combination of immigration (from Eastern Europe) & the large number of children in ethnic minority families.

        I have not seen an official breakdown explaining the rise in population and given that our next official census is not until 2011, I doubt I will see one before then.

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:48AM (#31450052)
    Since its Harriet Harman involved I expect that the pressing of the button will result in the immediate rounding up of all males over 12 involved in the conversation for incarceration without trial. And it obviously won't matter what was said, because it will be the "emotion affect" on the kid pressing the button that counts, not the actual words.
    • by maroberts (15852) on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:50AM (#31450074) Homepage Journal

      I think the button should be connected to a device to administer a large voltage to Harriet Harperson whenever pressed. The take up would be enormous.

      • by mpe (36238)
        I think the button should be connected to a device to administer a large voltage to Harriet Harperson whenever pressed. The take up would be enormous.

        Version 2 would come up with a prompt of "Which MP/Peer do you want to shock today?" and would be even more popular.
      • by cgenman (325138)

        The button is a perfect interface for this by people who clearly know what they're doing. Other things Harriet is advocating:

        Emergency reigns to pull back on when your Prius stops responding to your orders.
        Extra large sceptres of power for small videoconferencing screens.
        Home witchburning kits with reduced carbon footprint.
        "Please Sir, Don't Hit Me." embroidered shirts for abuse victims.
        Big fluffy St Bernards with tiny barrels of hot chocolate around their neck for children lost in World of Warcraft.

    • by Manip (656104) on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:58AM (#31450116)

      Agreed.
      It is shocking how sexist she is and how much she gets away with "because she was a women." Heck she was even short listed for her position BECAUSE she was a women.

      Ultimately we differ in opinion because she believes the means justify the ends (e.g. positively biased for women will counterbalance history and everyone will be equal), where I believe we promote *equality* and the problem will fix its self in time.

      She for example introduced a bill that mandated they employ women over men if both are equally qualified. They also placed no limits on how far this should go or when it should end. This bill directly impacts jobs that are already dominated by women so they cannot employ men.

      • by makomk (752139) on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:14AM (#31450222) Journal

        It is shocking how sexist she is and how much she gets away with "because she was a women."

        Remember that sexism, by definition, can only be against women [wordpress.com] and that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. Once you understand the standard feminist definition of sexism, things should make a lot more sense, whether you agree with it or not.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:24AM (#31450274)

          Similar to how anti-semitism is defined as being against the policies of the current Israeli government (by them anyway)?

        • by FreeUser (11483) on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:32AM (#31450316)

          Remember that sexism, by definition, can only be against women and that it's impossible for women to be sexist against men. Once you understand the standard feminist definition of sexism, things should make a lot more sense, whether you agree with it or not.

          OK, some dipship female supremecist who calls herself a feminist makes a boneheaded definition for sexism on her blog, and you paint all feminists with that brush?

          Femenism simply means the belief that all people are equal irrespective of gender. Some femenists are angrier or more shrill than others, but the fundamental definition of femenism remains, to wit

          feminism /fmnzm/ Show Spelled[fem-uh-niz-uhm] - noun
          1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
          2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
          3. feminine character.

          The problem is that a whole lot of angry men (and eager-to-please women) jumped on a reactionary "not in these-here parts" bandwagen and have deliberately misused the term to mean something it isn't. It makes me wonder if the blogger you linked to isn't really a right-wing troll / agent provocatuer. Certainly her definition of sexism isn't consistent wtih the definition of feminism. Clearly men and women are equal, and equally clearly, sexism goes both ways. It is simply an unfortunate symptom of history, not to mention a whole lot of mysognist cultures (e.g. much of the middle-east, though by no means limited only to that region) and institutions (e.g. the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, Penthouse Magazine, and the list goes on), that the most common experience by far is male sexism against women.

          Harriot Harmon is a prime example of the opposite, and her methods should clearly not be supported, but that's no excuse to go labelling feminists as female supremecists, or pointing to some random blog by someone who doesn't even know the meaning of the word as an "authority" on how feminists would define "sexism" or any other term.

          • by malkavian (9512) on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:47AM (#31450414) Homepage

            I doubts it's a "right wing troll". Over here in 'sunny' Bristol, UK, there was a great little scandal a while ago, where a black city councilor accused an Asian councilor of being a "coconut" (brown on the outside, white on the inside) as the Asian councilor supported a bill that wasn't stacked towards Asians (though in a pragmatic sense, was geared towards the general wellbeing long term of the city for all people).
            The big defense of this black councilor was that "she couldn't be racist, because she was black". That was an actual, on the record quote.
            After having had many witch hunts for racism in the council, this rather more blatant (and on the public record; the "coconut" comment was made in session and thus recorded) event was rapidly swept under the carpet, and the decision of the disciplinary board was that "no action should be taken".

            • by Fuzzypig (631915)
              I believe there have several cases here in the UK where those from ethnic minorities have tried to play that card, "I'm [ethinic minority] how can I be racist?!". The question I would ask these planks is, "Race has nothing to do with it pal, you're that stupid and detached from reality, how do you manage to get your trousers on in the morning?"!!!
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Stormwatch (703920)

              For a moment I thought: "Huh, a brown-skinned asian, that's rather unusual!"

              Then I got it: in UK, when you say "Asian", you mean Indian or Pakistani. Technically, that is not wrong; but in most other countries, I believe, if you say "Asian", everyone will think of a person from the Far East -- i.e., Japan, China, Korea. And even if you do say "Indian", you still have to specify: Indian as one from India, not the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

            • by VJ42 (860241) *

              Over here in 'sunny' Bristol, UK, there was a great little scandal a while ago, where a black city councilor accused an Asian councilor of being a "coconut"

              I've had this insult thrown at me; I make a point of calling it out as a racist one, though the people using it usually don't realise it... It would be funny how other Indians\Asians react when called out on blatant racism if it wasn't so serious.

          • >>>The problem is that a whole lot of angry men (and eager-to-please women) jumped on a reactionary "not in these-here parts" bandwagen and have deliberately misused the term to mean something it isn't.
            >>>

            No.

            We just observed the obvious - a lot of feminists are anti-male sexists who would like to see (for example) me fired and replaced with a woman. We didn't twist the definition - they did that themselves and if they don't like it, then they should act to SILENCE the male-hating feminis

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by kria (126207)
            As one of those rare female posters here on slashdot, thank you for this post. People on one of the feminist geek sites I go to (www.girl-wonder.org) like to point out that people are different even when they claim a particular group name. People disagree. We see this all the time with people on the fringes of political parties and religion, so why not feminism?
          • by makomk (752139)

            OK, some dipship female supremecist who calls herself a feminist makes a boneheaded definition for sexism on her blog, and you paint all feminists with that brush?

            Sorry, but she's no dipshit female supremicist. A female supremicist would be someone like m Andrea, or Mary Daly, or... (though it's worth noting that most of those are reasonably widely tolerated and defended even within the mainstream of feminism). This is a normal, common feminist definition from a mainstream site - in fact, a site that people on a lot of other feminist website use. It's founded and run by tigtog, of Hoyden About Town, who's about as far from an extremist as you can get.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by FreeUser (11483)

              Sorry, but she's no dipshit female supremicist. A female supremicist would be someone like m Andrea, or Mary Daly, or... (though it's worth noting that most of those are reasonably widely tolerated and defended even within the mainstream of feminism). This is a normal, common feminist definition from a mainstream site - in fact, a site that people on a lot of other feminist website use. It's founded and run by tigtog, of Hoyden About Town, who's about as far from an extremist as you can get.

              Sorry, but her d

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by t0p (1154575)

          That's right. The correct term for "sexism by women against men" is "feminism". Isn't it? ;)

          NB: Any women reading this post, please don't mistake that ;) for an inappropriate, lecherous gesture. I find lecherous gestures are always appropriate! ;)

      • It is shocking how sexist she is and how much she gets away with "because she was a women."

        woman...

        Heck she was even short listed for her position BECAUSE she was a women.

        woman.

      • She for example introduced a bill that mandated they employ women over men if both are equally qualified. They also placed no limits on how far this should go or when it should end. This bill directly impacts jobs that are already dominated by women so they cannot employ men.

        It also encourages widening of the qualification gap between men and women, since men will now have to get themselves higher qualified to get a job.

  • Muhehehe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:50AM (#31450068)
    We already have bad experience [radio.cz] with child protection buttons, and I seriously doubt that this one will do more good than harm. What's happened to good old parenting?
    • by IBBoard (1128019)

      What's happened to good old parenting?

      People want the kids but not the responsibility, so they're outsourcing the responsibility and blaming everyone but themselves when they do a bad job.

      And I say this as a guy in his mid-20s with a kid approaching 2. The wife and I are both annoyed at times by all of these laws and complaints from parents who basically don't want to do a proper job of bringing their kids up.

      • by Bigbutt (65939)

        Anecdote is not Data of course.

        A friend has a daughter who was around 14 at the time. She didn't like dad's rules regarding homework and not staying out late. So she bailed to a friend's house. He went to find her, located her at the friend's place and went in to get her. He was busted for trespassing. Ok, good call. Next time she bailed, he found her and called the police. "Sorry sir, she's not breaking any laws" so he couldn't do anything about it. Third time she bailed, he simply waited for her to return

    • "you come across something worrisome on the internet - child pornography or extremism for example - you anonymously push the button on your browser, and the police are notified and check it out. What happened in practice though was that the button was sending not only the site in question but your recent browsing history as well"

      Oh that's just great. I can hear the police officer now as he visits my home, "Thank you for reporting that child porn site. Unfortunately you also self-reported yourself to be buying illegal copies of Nintendo games on ebay, and browsing the danish site seventeen.com. You are under arrest."

  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:51AM (#31450078)

    ...that got done by the police for driving without due care and attention [timesonline.co.uk]?

    So presumably Facebook is a danger to kids whilst her talking on a mobile phone while driving is safe for kids who could be out in the street at the time?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not that I am a particular fan of the woman myself, but that kind of tenuous link between facts sounds like something I would expect the Daily Mail to come out with.

      Come on people, some more valid criticisms? How about the fact that she is trying to force a private company to shoehorn an unproven 'solution' to a problem that should be resolved through better parenting.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Fred_A (10934)

      So presumably Facebook is a danger to kids whilst her talking on a mobile phone while driving is safe for kids who could be out in the street at the time?

      Legally, I think it's currently ok to run over kids *if* they are fully clothed.

  • by abigsmurf (919188) on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:52AM (#31450084)
    Allowing Children on the internet to quickly and easily label anyone they like a child abuser. What could possibly go wrong?

    It gets better though, if you are ever accused of child abuse, it goes on record and will be returned whenever an employer does a background check. Doesn't matter if the allegations are complete rubbish and everyone acknowledges this. It'll still haunt you for life.

    To top it all off, there's a condition that the government can put on your record making the information on your background check confidential to anyone. Including yourself. You can fail a background check and never you have failed one. The employer can't tell you you've failed, so if there's a mistake on your background check, it is impossible to get it remedied and your life is basically ruined.
    • by VJ42 (860241) * on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:31AM (#31450306)

      To top it all off, there's a condition that the government can put on your record making the information on your background check confidential to anyone. Including yourself. You can fail a background check and never you have failed one. The employer can't tell you you've failed, so if there's a mistake on your background check, it is impossible to get it remedied and your life is basically ruined.

      In the UK the only "background checks" that are done by employers are those done for people who work with children & vulnerable adults; they are called CRB [wikipedia.org] checks. Both times I've had one done, I got a copy. Other employers don't get to do 'background checks' and even if they were allowed, you could use the data protection act to find out any information they hold on you. In short, your post doesn't apply to the UK.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by malkavian (9512)

        CRB checks are done by most employers, volunteers and a whole host of other agencies that want a criminal records check. This is the 'valid' method which is quite sane in most respects, and yes, you get a copy of your CRB check.
        The post was about the "Vetting and barring database" which you'll have to register on if you have formal contact with children more than a couple of times a week. This involves schools, hospitals, taking kids to school if you do the school run, retail outlets (you do serve childre

        • "Soft intelligence" is only included as footnotes on Enhanced CRB checks. These are the level of check for children and vulnerable adults the parent was referring to. It is not released when other agencies or employers request CRB records.

          Working in the education system, I have one every two years. My employer didn't receive the actual file; It was sent to me and I produced it when requested by my employer.
      • by abigsmurf (919188)
        Except Labour have been expanding the scope of CRB checks. It used to be, you do paid work with children every day, you need a check. Now it's "you could possibly come into contact with children, in a job or outside of one", you need a check.

        However these records are now accessible outside of CRB checks (at the moment only in certain regions but it's being rolled out nationwide). Girlfriends can check to "see if you're a danger", families of girlfriends can check, parents of kids who your kids often play
        • by VJ42 (860241) *

          Except Labour have been expanding the scope of CRB checks. It used to be, you do paid work with children every day, you need a check. Now it's "you could possibly come into contact with children, in a job or outside of one", you need a check.

          I understand this, but you said "you can fail a background check and never know". That's outright false. When I had mine, the CRB results were sent to me, not my employer & I had to produce it when they wanted it.

          However these records are now accessible outside of CRB checks (at the moment only in certain regions but it's being rolled out nationwide). Girlfriends can check to "see if you're a danger", families of girlfriends can check, parents of kids who your kids often play with can check.

          I understand this (my area is one of the pilots). The information given out in these cases isn't a full enhanced CRB. What happens is a person can go to the police and ask them about an adult in contact with someone to whom they are related (e.g a woman can ask about her new boyfriend, or an ex

    • by houghi (78078)

      The fact that an amployer can see what you crimes where is in itself a violation of privacy. If you did the time, you should be able to do a job.

      Now what could be asked for certain jobs would be some sort of security. What could be asked is a paper that verifies if you got that security level or not. With the unions pretty strict I can assume that in Europe not every job could require the highest level.
      That would mean that a child molester might not get a job in a kindergaten, but could get a job at a bank.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Rogerborg (306625)

      To be fair - and it twists my titties to say anything nice about Zanulabour - this is a Harridan Hormone policy, not nuLabour. She's utterly, utterly deranged.

      Although of course it is exactly the sort of tabloid friendly knee-jerk bullshit policy that they do so love enacting. Fortunately they won't have time, although I'm sure they'll announce it then accuse everyone else of being Soft on Child Predators.

      • by makomk (752139)

        Harriet Harman is the Leader of the House of Commons and often stands in for the Prime Minister himself when he's not available. She's not exactly some minor rogue backbencher...

    • by VShael (62735) on Friday March 12, 2010 @09:28AM (#31450734) Journal

      I can't wait until my nephew in the UK is old enough to accuse various MP's of molestation, even if he's never met them.

      "You want a PS4 for Christmas kiddo? Here's a list of names. Ruin their lives for me. Thanks."

    • by dintlu (1171159)

      So, have your kid create a Facebook account and visit the profiles of every Labor party representative, employee, and intern you can find, accusing each and every one of them of child abuse.

  • Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Manip (656104) on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:53AM (#31450090)

    Frankly this isn't a shock given our current government's tracks record.
      - Licence to take kids to football practice
      - Licence to own a dog (and third party liability insurance)
      - CCTV Cameras on every street corner
      - An "equality opportunity" amendment which promotes racist and sexist hiring (what the hell?)
      - Virtual strip search at every airport
      - ID Cards
      - et al

    Being extremely liberal is great. But some days I wish the UK had a little more of the things American conservatives love (e.g. Personal Freedom, less interference).

    • Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

      by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:02AM (#31450140)

      Being extremely liberal is great

      Somebody has kidnapped the word "liberal" here. I thought the word had something to do with freedom, which seems to be absent in the list above.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by AlecC (512609)

        Indeed. The word "liberal" has very different meanings on the opposite sides of the Atlantic. The traditional UK sense of Liberal was closer to (but not equal to) the US Libertarian. True UK liberals would legalise drugs and, probably, guns.

  • Dear Parents... (Score:4, Informative)

    by pandrijeczko (588093) on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:57AM (#31450110)

    The following list of things should not be considered as trustworthy babysitters and are no substitute for proper parenting skills:

    An Internet connected PC
    A box of fireworks
    A games console
    A set of throwing knives

    Now kindly stop with trying to fulfill your lives by shitting out more kids that you're not prepared to be responsible for and expecting the rest of us to make concessions for them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @07:57AM (#31450114)

    We respect your concerns about child safety, so we've installed a Child Safety Button for our younger users. It's a big "X" located in the upper-right corner of Facebook. Macs don't use X technology, so we built a red button for their Facebook instead. We're pretty sure those are the only two Facebooks anyone uses.

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:01AM (#31450136) Journal

    You could argue that the UK government is just trying to interfere in how a private non-uk business runs its site, but then again, if you leave it to private industry, actors claiming to be doctors would be telling you that smoking is healthy. Private industry does have a reputation for ignoring the welfare of its customers for the sake of profits.

    Just as car makers prefered killing a few customers over the message that cars could be dangerous by installing seatbelts, facebook hardly wants to carry the message that social networking is not all fun and games to strongly.

    From what I know of the warning button, it is just a link to a site where you can get advice about how to stay safe. So fairly similar to a "smoking can kill you" sticker. The truly stupid won't read it, but who knows, it might work and what is the harm?

    Yeah, yeah, parents should tell their kids. Except a lot of parents don't have a clue about what their kids are up to. They did not grow up with the internet, don't know the capabilities. Kids are incredibly stupid if you let them, but then kids are also famous for not reading warnings anyway.

    But why is facebook so opposed to it? Does it have a serious complaint, or is it seatbelts all over again? Yeah the summary says that facebook claims their own warnings are good enough. Right... and why should we take their word for it? They would hardly say "we don't want the button and our own systems suck because we don't give a shit". They got a reason not to want the button, and I need a little bit more then obvious marketing speech to see why. Because I can see a very simple reason why they really don't want it. It might scare people of using their service.

    • by MoonBuggy (611105)

      It's not just a warning, it's a button that reports "suspicious activity" directly to CEOP. I'm assuming that said report must include some identifying information of the parties involved or it would be no use to anyone.

      I know Facebook are not exactly the bastions of privacy and security that we might like, but bowing to the pressure of a country other than the one in which they are based, and in doing so firing off arbitrary personal information about their users, is an understandable place to draw the lin

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by HungryHobo (1314109)

      And if china requires a "report dissent" button so that Chinese teenagers can report people for calling for a free tibet etc.
      A few years later you're catching a connecting flight through a Chinese airport....

      It's not that hard to teach your kids basic net safety.
      It's just a pity that social networks fly in the face of it.

      I grew up with the simple rules of :

      Never give out your real name.
      Never tell people where you live.

      Now of course I worry about my younger cousin since those rules seem to have gone out of f

  • * Child meets someone online.
    * Child gets on with person.
    * Child agrees to meet up with person.
    * Child meets up with person.
    * Bad things happen.

    How would having a big "Click here to report this person" button help? If they're willing to meet up, then they're obviously not suspicious about the person's intentions. Even a big flashing "Are you sure this person isn't going to try and do nasty things to you?" banner on screen would quickly be ignored and forgotten about

    • by mpe (36238)
      * Child meets someone online.
      * Child gets on with person.
      * Child agrees to meet up with person.


      Most of the other ways in which people meet up do not have the previous two steps.

      * Child meets up with person.
      * Bad things happen.


      It need not be to the "child" that "bad things" happen.
  • by gencha (1020671)
    There already is such a button on every computer. It's more widely known as the power button.
    • by mpe (36238)
      There already is such a button on every computer. It's more widely known as the power button.

      Pity there isn't one fitted to all MPs. Won't someone think of the children ;)
  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:17AM (#31450238)

    If you're a British politician, you automatically go on "Arsebook".

    If you're a parent without parental responsibility, your "Facebook" account gets transferred to "Arsebook".

    And if you've queued up at midnight for a computer game or an iPhone, you go into the "Arsebook" "What A Total Arse" section.

    That'll soon learn them...

  • hmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zerointeger (1587877)

    Good parenting is a better option.

    Having a button in any type of chat application which either party can flag a conversation with is so interfering with a UI that you all hate the idea?

    I don't have kids, and I cannot think of anything better then good parenting but I also cannot see any harm adding a simple for the sole purpose of making it easier to handle things such as bots, scammers, predators etc.

    The only problem I can really see is misuse of the button when an ex-girlfriend decides she wants to fuck w

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by natehoy (1608657)

      I find your post offensive and have clicked on the CEOP button Slashdot has installed. Prepare for a visit!

      Seriously, what good would this button do in preventing anything? If the child is duped into meeting up with Chester Molester, then they aren't going to press the button. If the child is suspicious, they are going to either use the existing "report as offensive" button which already exists, or they are going to yell for Mom or Dad who will call CEOP on the telephone so they can respond in time to ma

  • The sooner the general election comes the better - there are only weeks left of the current parliament, and so all the politicians are posturing not in the expectation of changing the law, but only in the hope of getting re-elected.

    In today's news, the Lib Dem's have selected a female porn director as their prospective candidate, so perhaps there is some hope left.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/kent/8563214.stm [bbc.co.uk]

  • However, it has since emerged that Williams-Thomas was not using Facebook for his research but a different, unspecified social network. In a message on Twitter he claims that the reference to Facebook was introduced by editors at the paper, despite being told it was wrong.

    The only way to fix this is to make defamation a graduated crime. If the Daily Mail pulls a complete hail mary by putting a front page confession, then let them off lightly. If they put it on page Z30 where no one reads, then fine them to

    • by natehoy (1608657)

      So he made up a bunch of facts about an unknown social network, then his editors changed the name of the social network, and the suggested response is to implement a solution that has never solved any real, existing problems.

      Actually, if the problem is made up, then a useless made-up solution seems like a perfect one.

      Using the existing solutions would be be better and more efficient, but how's that going to pander the votes of the clueless masses who want to protect the children from this evil Internet thin

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:40AM (#31450370)

    The paper got a story from a guy who did a quick-and-dirty unpublished study on how quickly they were approached on a different site entirely, the DM ghostwrote it into a different story entirely about Facebook, ignored the original author's corrections, and put it up on the front page.

  • So what's this panic button for precisely? So little Eric/Erica can press it when the predatory perverts reach out through the monitor?

    I would have thought Eric/Erica wouldn't realise "little Chester" is a nonce until they've gone to the park to meet up with their new friend. I don't think Chester the Molester is going to properly introduce himself online. That would kinda interfere with the grooming process.

    And what's wrong with the usual "report this post/message" kinda link? Would a special "OMG he's

    • by natehoy (1608657)

      It wouldn't. But it's a change to the Facebook page that everyone can see, and feel comforted by.

      In order to be effective, yes, you have to have a kid who is smart enough to tell his/her parents "hey, this bloke wants to meet me at the local park at midnight to give me candy", at which point the parents pick up the phone and call (is it 999 over there on the other side of the pond? Anyway, whatever the police number is) and ask them to meet you there so Chester can get all the lovin' attention he needs fr

  • Incorrect Summary (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tim C (15259) on Friday March 12, 2010 @09:02AM (#31450526)

    The button is not called CEOP. CEOP is the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre [ceop.gov.uk]. The button is apparently called "CLICKCEOP" [ceop.gov.uk], but is mostly referred to as the "paedophile panic" button in the press or simply the "button" on the CEOP site.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @09:07AM (#31450580)

    It is Harriot Harman who argues that being drunk is no defence for men accused of rape (fair enough)... but strangely, she also argues that woman cannot be held to have 'consented' if they are drunk.

    She was also responsible for the repeal of the defence in murder cases of 'provocation', which was a defence used primarily by men (again, fair enough). Strange then that at the same time, Harriot brought in a new defence which allowed abused women to claim long term abuse by the husband, as a defence if they then murdered their partner - rather than, say, leave them.

    She goes on to argue that the low conviction rate of alleged rapists is proof, in itself, that too many men are getting away with rape (might be true), but fails to acknowledge the alternative explanation, that too many false allegations of rape are being submitted by women.

    Harriot is one awful tub of man hating menopausal angst.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chrisq (894406)

      She goes on to argue that the low conviction rate of alleged rapists is proof, in itself, that too many men are getting away with rape (might be true), but fails to acknowledge the alternative explanation, that too many false allegations of rape are being submitted by women.

      Harriot is one awful tub of man hating menopausal angst.

      Actually it is proven that there are a large number of false allegations. [mankind.org.uk]

  • Hmmm

    I have come to the conclusion that for professional politicians it is far more important to be seen to be doing something (anything), than it is for them to actually do something effectively.

    This appears to be nothing more than a public relations exercise designed to show the voters that the government has their best interest at heart.

  • The most dangerous phrase ever uttered by society "There ought to be a law..." and I'm a lawyer. This shit is just out of hand.

    It's a good thing George Carlin is dead, cause this would kill him. I just keep replaying his stand up bit in my head.

    Daintywoman: Think of the children! Think of the children! Think of th...
    George: Fuck the Children! (And this is Mr. Conductor Talking)
  • by GuyFawkes (729054) on Friday March 12, 2010 @09:35AM (#31450800) Homepage Journal

    You basically only have to walk down the street with your ears open.

    Back when I were a lad, it was routine to insult kids who were not of your group, fatty, lanky, ginger, smelly, stinky, etc.

    Today the default insult is "paedo"

    I've lost count of the number of times I have seen teenagers and younger, of both sexes, respond to an adult who tells them off for something, eg "stop fucking around with my car" with chants of "paedo!"

    Teachers in UK schools essentially live in fear of one of the kids responding to being told off for setting fire to little johnny in 2A with an accusation of violence or sexual assault being made against the teacher.

    You won't find a small kid who does not already;

    a/ own a mobile phone
    b/ know the childline and other abuse numbers by heart

    We are sowing what we reaped.

    I say in all sincerity, there are a LOT of adults today who have learned this lesson so well that they could witness either an adult women or a schoolgirl being gang raped, and simply walk on by, deliberately seeing nothing, as being the only safe option.

    http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

  • How on earth did anyone manage to become adults before, without being constantly molested or our minds corrupted by such evils as pictures of nipples and reproductive organs. Thanks to all the silly "think of the children", "beware of terrorists" laws lately i feel SO MUCH SAFER. George Orwell would weep.
  • The thing that Irks me about this is that it says that somehow the UK is due for special treatment. This sort of attitude comes out of the US all the time (on the back of "we're the biggest economy"), but we Brits don't deserve special treatment because we're the same as everyone else - thinking of ourselves modestly is a British thing to do. Perhaps HH needs to sit the "Britishness test" we're subjecting wannabe residents to these days? ;-)

    The other thing that irks me is that if kids are getting pestered,

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...